Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
T
This document, in addition to making references to laws and principles, includes sections on most practical issues encountered in research such as research planning and management, data generation and protection, work relations, supervision of students, contracts, intellectual property and preventing misconduct. As such, it is a valuable handbook to all those practicing research in France. +
This guideline describes the roles of three stakeholders: funders, those who evaluate proposals and those who carry out research- in ensuring adherence to RI standards. +
This document identifies makes recommendations concerning the following areas: enabling academic integrity, publication process, dealing with disputes, evaluations and assessment and responsibilities of various stakeholders. +
Besides ethical principles, it is important that researchers be aware of national laws such as those of copyright. This influences authorship especially in the case of joint authorship. +
"For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency." +
Interesting read to start a discussion, e.g. as preparation to an exercise or training session or a discussion meeting. +
You learn to see and understand different topics of responsible research through the eyes of different stakeholders in research. +
Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang’s case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”. +
The Manchester University's Code of Practice for Investigating Concerns about the Conduct of Research +
Research misconduct can be detrimental to the University and to the scientific community at large. Therefore, allegations of misconduct are to be taken seriously, while simultaneously preserving the confidentiality of the complainants and respondents. Thus, it is essential that goof frameworks and policies exist to identify, screen and investigate misconduct, and to possibly undertake disciplinary action. +
According to various research integrity codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific principles or virtues such as: ‘honesty’, ‘reliability’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'. But how should a person behave to uphold the virtue of ‘honesty’ in specific situations? Can a researcher be too honest? Or not honest enough? This exercise aims to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behavior in a challenging research integrity situation.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"' +
According to various research integrity codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific virtues or principles by being: ‘honest’, ‘reliable’, ‘responsible’ and ‘accountable’<sup>1</sup>. These are intended to guide researchers to act with integrity when they are confronted with moral issues in research practice. But how should a person behave to uphold the virtue of ‘honesty’ in specific situations? Can a researcher be too honest? Or not honest enough? Following the example of honesty, what is, for a specific person in a specific context, the right way to be honest?
This exercise aims to train you, as a trainer, to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry among the trainees into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behaviors. +
Under this law, the definitions and procedures for the identification and handling of research misconduct are uniform within the country;thus, there it little room for ambiguity or differences of practice among institutions. It also states clearly the extent of responsibilities of Danish research institutions and those of the Danish Committee on Research Misconduct. +
'General guidelines for Research Ethics' is important because it ensures credibility and trust in research by providing both preventive and corrective guidance. It prevents misconduct by educating researchers on standards, and offers frameworks for addressing violations fairly. In today’s interconnected research environment, having shared ethical codes strengthens international collaboration and consistency. For governments, institutions, and the public, this document demonstrates commitment to transparency, fairness, and societal responsibility. It is not just a guideline but a foundation for safeguarding the reliability of research outcomes. +
This document proposes changes in seven areas of the Research Ethics Act:
- Statutory stipulation of the research ethics responsibility of research institutions
-Changes to the system for processing research ethics cases
- Institutions' reasoned opinions in research ethics cases
- Changes in the Commission's composition and mandate
- A clarification of the Research Ethics Act's definition of scientific misconduct
- Deferred public access during the processing of ethical issues at an institution
- The institutions' prerogative to preserve the anonymity of the reporter +
The Nuremberg Code has both historical and ethical importance. Although it does not cary the force of law, it is the first international document which advocated voluntary participation and informed consent. +
Publication of clinical trial results is important, especially if the drug under investigation is potentially harmful to the patients. If the pharmaceutical company tries to force the researcher to do otherwise, the institution should intervene and try to support its employee, even if this means that the institution receives no funding from the company. Similarly, the local bioethical community should offer support as well. The example at hand shows the potential consequences if this is not the case: the integrity of the research may be endangered, along with the health of both the patients and researchers. <br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
This is a case for discussion on stem cell research ethics, presented with a number of stimulating questions, by the Office of Biotechnology at Iowa State University. It reinforces the notion that where no clear legislation on stem cell research is in force, decisions as to whose stakes to protect and how, may become ethical dilemma disputes and legal battles. +
Our research has shown that training is essential to prepare researchers for the next crisis. The PREPARED App helps navigate dilemmas in global crises. The app is publicly available on [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iclaim.prepared.prepared_app Google Play] and on the [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/prepared-app/id6473009485 AppStore]. +
The PREPARED Code is important because it ensures that research during pandemics is conducted ethically, transparently, and fairly, even under urgent and high-pressure conditions. It protects vulnerable populations, promotes collaboration, and safeguards public trust in science. By guiding researchers to uphold values like fairness, respect, care, and honesty, the Code helps prevent exploitation, misinformation, and harm. It also supports ethical decision-making, informed consent, and responsible data sharing. In times of crisis, when rapid research is essential, this Code provides a globally relevant standard to balance scientific urgency with human dignity and ethical integrity. +
Carrying out socio-economic research in a professional and ethical manner involves balancing a number of different principles which often lie in tension with each other. This code is based on a recognition that it is the responsibility of individual researchers to make the often difficult professional decisions that establish this balance, and that it is the responsibility of their employers, professional associations and research funders to support them in making these decisions. +
